Bush will not designate June as Gay Pride Month. You know, I feel like I shouldn’t be angry. I feel like after four and a half months I should be used to things like this. But I am angry. It’s not like it would have been such a big step to do this; after all, Clinton did it. In situations like this, I find it’s helpful to ask: If you substitute the word “black” or “Jewish” or “Asian” for “gay,” would the outcome be different? Asking this question usually reveals the truth behind all those cowardly excuses and subconscious rationalizations such as “[Bush] does not believe in politicizing people�s sexual orientation. That�s a personal matter.� Seeing as how Bush proclaimed Black History Month back in February (and rightly so), the answer to the above question is yes, which makes this reprehensible.

It’s not like Gay Pride Month is cancelled. (“Okay, guys! Send back all the Bud Lite!”) But it’s not the practical effects that are important here. It’s the symbolism. Symbolism goes a long way. Yes, I will grant you that Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act and implemented don’t-ask-don’t-tell, both of which had more than symbolic repercussions. But on the other hand, the pathbreaking respect and attention that he gave to gay voters beginning in 1992 — even if you take the most cynical view that he did this only in order to gain the gay vote and appear compassionate and open-minded, a view I’m not sure I hold — really contributed to a sea change in this country’s perception of gay people and its discussion of gay issues. In light of this, Bush’s action here — or more appropriately, non-action — comes off seeming close-minded, reactionary, childish, snitty, and incredibly passive-aggressive.

I really don’t know how I’m going to get through the next 43 1/2 months — or, God forbid, 91 1/2 months — of this presidency.